Court Dismisses Petition on Money Laundering Act Provisions; Summons Deemed Infructuous, Constitutional Validity Upheld.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and seeking to void certain summons. The summons were deemed infructuous due to time lapse, and the SC had already upheld the constitutionality of the provisions. The petition was found non-maintainable.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petition challenges the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and seeks to declare certain summons as illegal and void.

Summary:

Issue 1:
The petitioner, the Chief Minister of the State, filed a writ petition u/s Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and to declare specific summons as illegal and void. The petitioner also sought writs restraining the respondents from acting on the summons. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the summons had become infructuous due to the passage of time and that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the constitutionality of the challenged provisions.

Issue 2:
During the hearing, it was argued that the summons issued to the petitioner did not specify whether the petitioner was summoned as an accused or a witness. The petitioner's counsel contended that the summons did not indicate the predicate agency or offences, and no FIR had been registered against the petitioner. The Court noted these arguments but ultimately found the writ petition not maintainable due to the summons becoming infructuous and the settled legal position regarding the challenged provisions.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered in this case.

---